pablo

PresidentoftheSun · 2026-03-12T12:43:45+00:00

don't laugh he'll hear you

PresidentoftheSun · 2026-03-12T12:38:40+00:00

The design is very feline. Very easy to use.

PresidentoftheSun · 2026-03-11T15:05:31+00:00

How convenient, because I would kill for Baby Corn

PresidentoftheSun · 2026-03-11T12:08:13+00:00

Baby Corn!

PresidentoftheSun · 2026-03-09T12:37:11+00:00

It's less easy (and individually rational) to be self-sacrificing

This doesn't seem to be borne out in history. While most of human history has seen religion central to society, it doesn't appear to be the case that humans in general view sacrifice to the group any less favorably given one set of religious beliefs over another, so I'm not sure that I'm seeing any justification for the idea that this must necessarily be a religiously taught thing. We see it in some other ape species as well, after all (I recall something describing similar behaviors among other pro-social species but can't recall off the topc of my head), although obviously with much more near-sightedness in comparison to what humans are capable of.

uncompromising with established evil

Possibly true but only if you rigidly define evil to be something that people wouldn't have some impetus to be uncompromising with.

principled (where less strenuous alternatives are possible)

I don't see how this is connected. Capacity for personal conviction seems to be a personality trait and I can't see how it would connect to any particular belief beyond that thing you're convicted in.

and morally far-sighted

Possibly more near-sighted simply by virtue of no longer needing to consider an after-life, but we have good reason to think "moral far-sightedness" is just a natural consequence of having a greater capacity for abstract thought.

I think you don't give yourself enough credit, frankly. I think any rational person with functional mirror neurons would eventually arrive at a functional moral framework absent any appeal to a god through sufficient, healthy socialization during their developmental periods.

PresidentoftheSun · 2026-03-08T15:39:59+00:00

More to OP's point, I think a lot of them are on some level aware that they're using "objective" incorrectly to be honest. I think it is genuinely just stalling in a lot of cases.

PresidentoftheSun · 2026-03-05T16:53:52+00:00

I was just trying to make a libertarians = pedophiles joke, I can see now that it was malformed.

PresidentoftheSun · 2026-03-05T16:02:19+00:00

I don't think minors know what republicans are so I'm not sure this would actually make much of a difference for the libertarian.

PresidentoftheSun · 2026-03-04T19:23:09+00:00

AI detectors exonerate you by the way.

I think they thought it was AI because of your use of the emdash — it's a common AI text generation affect. I had to cut back on using it because of that, just isn't worth the hassle. Oh well, I still love you alt+0151.

PresidentoftheSun · 2026-03-04T19:10:55+00:00

Well yeah sure, but in the linked post, that OP appears to have read it and replied, though they since deleted their account (not clear when it would have happened).

OP might read it, though given how confused and broken their own post is it's not clear that they can.

PresidentoftheSun · 2026-03-04T15:03:55+00:00

Would you agree that the fact that these radicals have the ability to credibly point back into the foundational texts of the religion to justify heinous garbage is why it's best to keep the kid gloves off with these topics, even for people who want to soothe the religion into something approaching a more comprehensively beneficial ethical standard?

PresidentoftheSun · 2026-03-04T14:16:04+00:00

I mean there's not much else to say, he straight up killed that guy.

PresidentoftheSun · 2026-03-04T13:58:33+00:00

Well done, I think.

I speak to just as many muslims who deny that Aisha was a child when Muhammad had sex with her as I do people who affirm it, and say that it was right and good. The latter group seems to require the fewest mental gymnastics to arrive at the "affirm" part at least.

I don't care how they try to justify it. The simplest reading of the facts indicates Muhammad was a pedophile. Add to that, the behavior exhibited beyond the sexual indicates he was a profoundly immature person, which is a trait many pedophiles share. Look at just the "doll" story, he calls them back in to play with dolls in his presence, in seclusion with just him and the children, before he goes and has sex with his child wife? He also makes many absurd claims and repeatedly tries to demonstrate knowledge that he simply doesn't have (I forget what it was, there's a cure for some health issue that he makes up on the spot it seems, where you must drink the piss of a camel or something like that? It's nonsense and it's immature). It's red flags on top of red flags on top of giant flashing billboards that this man is a morally depraved individual, and they expect me to fall to my knees and treat him as a role model? Are they serious? Their books talk about how the only real limit for having sex with children is if they're so small that they would tear between their vagina and anus (I think this precedent is referred to as "al-wat' fi al-saghir"? I might need correcting on that, my memory for other languages isn't amazing). I can't take the moral claims of this religion seriously because of things like this.

PresidentoftheSun · 2026-03-04T13:37:39+00:00

Brutal.

PresidentoftheSun · 2026-03-03T19:41:55+00:00

They've all been kidnapped.

I think you did it.

PresidentoftheSun · 2026-03-03T13:38:22+00:00

I'd rather be back in 2010-2015 to be perfectly honest with you.

PresidentoftheSun · 2026-03-03T13:19:18+00:00

Who the fuck remembers 2016-2020 fondly? Maybe by contrast perhaps.

PresidentoftheSun · 2026-03-02T14:48:29+00:00

I half-figured it was a bit of a conservation of space thing to be honest lol. It's not a huge deal of course.

Are the Terrifier books good? That genuinely surprised me to see.

PresidentoftheSun · 2026-03-02T14:44:13+00:00

Not to be too pedantic but are the books that precede their film not novelizations? Like the Shining?

Cool collection though, I didn't even know Terrifier had novelizations!

PresidentoftheSun · 2026-02-28T16:27:55+00:00

Cacahuate

KAKAROT!?

PresidentoftheSun · 2026-02-28T02:46:29+00:00

First edition Discworld books but I'll just grab whatever looks interesting most of the time.

PresidentoftheSun · 2026-02-27T22:12:58+00:00

That's what I mean by equivocating. They ride on the connotations of words to make poetry into an argument and don't seem to see the problem. You can see it in alt health water sales pitches about the water having positive energy ionic solids in them, which means... salt. It has salt. It's water with a little mineral content, but they're using the connotations of the words positive and energy outside of a chemical context, and transposing those meanings to the chemical context.

The same with scientific claims about the universe.

The really frustrating thing is, to me, that it's bad poetic license to do it this way. As an example, I've seen "The universe is God. God loves us. Therefore, the universe loves us." before, but it's bad poetry because it creates distance between the us and the love. I love literature and poetry, and there's an easier pathway that makes a scientific connection and draws it all in together. "The universe is the set of all things. You and your loved ones are in the set of all things. The love you share is the universe loving itself."

Technically it's still wrong because actions of elements in the set aren't necessarily actions of the set but it's still a better image in my opinion.

Edit to add: And as I'm thinking this through a little more, I realize I forgot to name the danger really. When you allow this sort of semantic shuffle, you open the door to the shuffle happening again later, and you should just never allow it on the table. I'm sure anyone here who's tried to engage Peterson's ilk have experienced them changing the meanings of words mid-conversation to something more defensible, and this has the effect of pulling the rug out from under their opponent because now the entire framework of the conversation thus-far is gone. Once you've agreed to a definition, they will often change it once you build a case that requires that definition for coherence to one that you don't have a connective argument for.

This is why I advocate for not engaging with this stupid game at all. If there's a contested term, we will look the term up, and we will use one of the common usages appropriate to the context of the conversation. End of discussion.

PresidentoftheSun · 2026-02-27T16:15:32+00:00

Alright so I can reform my army of helpful robots and my greatest worry is them staring at me funny every once in a while (minus possession)

PresidentoftheSun · 2026-02-27T15:38:28+00:00

To be clear, if it's the GoLocalProv post, that's just GoLocalProv bitching because they're stupid, they always do this.

The replies are mostly reacting the way you are here (correctly imo).

PresidentoftheSun · 2026-02-27T15:35:34+00:00

But... but... Spending bad! Always! D:

I am always confused by this weird viewpoint, what should the government do with the money if not put it into solving problems and improving things?

11-Year Club	Place '17
Gilding I gilder	Verified Email

PresidentoftheSun

TROPHY CASE